PGA2.0

The question becomes what are you questioning as not factual evidence?

The answer is your bible.

Don't runaway in fear and claim I didn't answer your question.

That is just the default godist LIE.

Lift your game and respond instead of running away in tears.

The golfer admits defeat. HOORAH.

I answered your question most emphatically, you only have lies and can't defend the lies from your book with them.

The question becomes what are you questioning as not factual evidence?

The answer is your bible and the reasons I gave destroy any pathetic rebuttal you may dishonestly attempt, so instead you squeak a bald faced lie and run away crying.

The difference between my belief and yours is that you have no hope for a future, only despair as you approach that time or the end. Then you can look back at your life and know that everything was for naught. It meant nothing in the big scheme of things.

I have no fairy tale hope for an afterlife that pacifies your fears, I don't despair of anything except man's inhumanity to man and the rest of the planet, I can look back on my life and be happy and proud. You seem to think that you are so important to the big scheme of things that it would be a waste to the big scheme of things if you didn't go on to become immortal, hubris much?

The other thing that is noteworthy is that God's existence and revelation mean we can know as certain what He has revealed.

You can believe what bronze/iron age primitive  ignorant superstitious savages imagined but you can't know anything about what the god they created revealed, you can have a fair idea what the bronze/iron age savages claim their man made god revealed, after all he lived in their imaginations they can have him reveal whatever they want.

What do you know about origins or death that is certain to you? You assume that when you die there is nothing. You assume that the universe happened a particular way, but you don't know for the reason that you don't have what is necessary for certainty.  

I don't know anything about origins and neither do you. 3billion yrs of death has proved that it is final, Your frightened fairy tales are pathetic to a grown up. I don't assume anything about the universe I leave that nonsense for the ignorant godists and your certainty is based entirely on the imaginations of bronze/iron age primitive, ignorant, superstitious savages. Good luck, it won't change anything you'll still have reality to deny to pacify your absurd fears.

BTW your morality considers infanticide and genocide as morally righteous, mine considers them atrocities and abominations. I'll stick with my far superior morality.

The difference between my belief and yours is that you have no hope for a future, only despair as you approach that time or the end. Then you can look back at your life and know that everything was for naught. It meant nothing in the big scheme of things.

On the contrary, at the very least I can look back on all the amazing things I've seen, learned and experienced in this life and all it has to offer. You on the other hand have squandered your precious time embracing ancient myths and superstitions written by goat herders centuries ago who had no concept of reason or rationale and relied entirely on fantasy and magical thinking for answers. You've learned nothing and will soon look back on a wasted life pursuing lies and deceit.

I answered your question most emphatically, you only have lies and can't defend the lies from your book with them.

The question becomes what are you questioning as not factual evidence?

The answer is your bible and the reasons I gave destroy any pathetic rebuttal you may dishonestly attempt, so instead you squeak a bald faced lie and run away crying.

My authority is God's word, yet my belief system is based on more than the Bible. It is based on history, and on reason, logic from what has been created.

Then, you have no authority. And you certainly have no concept of logic and reason. Belief systems never use them, they are unnecessary.

I could challenge you on many fronts, one of which is making sense of morality without such a being as God. Why is your relative view on morality (such as abortion) better than my view?

My views are not based on ancient myths and superstitions, misogyny, oppression or brain washing, they aren't wallowing in ignorance and denying facts in favor of fantasy. Your views of abortion have little to do with reality.

No, you guys never engaged.

There was nothing valid to engage.

The science of origins is faith-based. I trust everyday science. 

You keep piling up the evidence for your ignorance of science. Funny how you insist on showing us that time and again.

who wrote under the inspiration of God about these accounts

Theres about as much evidence of that as there is for the existence of Moses. None.

You get the idea of how the father passed onto the son the lineage until Moses put it into writing in the biblical accounts. 

I get how it was all made up by ignorant men.

The question becomes what are you questioning as not factual evidence?

The bible, it's a book of myth, fairy tales, folklore, imagination, fiction and lies.

There was no garden of Eden, read some science. There was no world wide flood, read some science. There was no 400yrs slavery in Egypt, read some history. There was no Exodus, read some archaeology.

There was no-one in the mythical garden to record the actions and conversations purported to have occurred.

There was no-one with Jesus and Satan after the forty days in the desert to record the actions and conversations purported to have occurred.

That's already to much for you to defend, but Moses didn't write anything. Besides being a fictional character his comic book died hundreds of years before the books were written. BTW what language did he write in?

How would you propose I demonstrate a SPIRITUAL Being, a being without a physical body, other than showing that what the Bible states is true?

That simply shows your entire belief system is based only on what's written in the Bible, which is not a source of evidence, it's a source of faith. So, if you can't demonstrate anything beyond what the Bible says, then you have no argument.

I have done this with the prophetic message in trying to establish its reasonableness and logic as opposed to claims of the contrary.  

That was a major fail on your part.

Try disputing what I laid down as factual in the prophecy thread.

That thread failed miserably.

Your worldview is faith-based, even if you do not understand this. 

Hence, your clam is that science is faith-based, which is more evidence to show you know nothing about science.

Just like you have faith in blind, indifferent, chance happenstance.

Yes, according to your incredibly ignorant world view, science is blind faith and chance happenstance. 

You should probably stick to faith based claims as your claims about science are very ignorant.

The biblical view goes back to creation and God's revelation of Himself as Creator to the first man and woman. 

Really? Tell us who recorded those events; creation and the first man and woman? Did Adam write it all down? Eve maybe? Who recorded those alleged events? The Biblical view is that of men who lived long after those events. Looks like you failed again

You confuse science with scientism. 

Prove it, don't just assert it.

Origins of life or the universe are not repeatable events, otherwise, we could experiment and recreate the universe or life from non-life.

Please tell us how to recreate life in a laboratory? Since the process took millions of years, please tell us how to recreate an experiment that represents millions of years? This is your ignorance of science.

The focus shifted to finding answers by human measures alone.  

That's because Religions failed to provide answers that align with the evidence of nature. This again is your ignorance of science.

Data does not tell us anything. How we interpret that data guide us in our thinking.

Wrong, the data tells us everything, you are biased to interpret it. Again, your ignorance of science.

News flash: We are all biased. There is NO neutrality.

No, YOU are biased, YOU had no neutrality. Science MUST be neutral or else we would never learn anything. YOU are biased, that's why you never learn anything. Again, your ignorance of science.

I have never stated that God is ONLY a thought of the human brain, a figment of our imagination,

Yet, that's the only thing you have ever demonstrated, nothing more.

but I point out compelling evidence, whether you want to believe it or dismiss it.

No, you haven't, you have made assertions, you've provided no compelling evidence.

That is between you and God and I leave it with Him for He knows best.

God isn't here, you are.

The existence of God has been/is obvious to a majority of people throughout the course of human history.

The existence of God is always based on faith, that's what it says in the Bible and that's what has always reflected reality.

They look at the universe and reason it must be the work of a Creator God.

No, they have faith God is the Creator, they have no evidence. It's all guesswork based on their bias towards wanting God to exist, just like you.

Unfortunately, many people do not worship God as He is. They have molded God into what they want Him to be. Thus, a myriad of world religions.

That looks exactly like what you have done, too. Although, it's not God they've molded, it's their faith in God that was molded, just like yours. You are no different than any of those others. There are many religions much older than yours so how do you know you are right and they are wrong?

If you say nothing other than "Truth" they mock you, and I think that really cuts through all their bs.

Try providing evidence and we'll see if I accept it, so far no evidence has been presented.

What proof would I accept? I'd accept proof, you don't have any that's why you equivocate, obfuscate and pontificate.

Fantasy, make believe and wishful thinking are all you can produce as "proof" and they don't count.

as as long as their mind hasn't been changed, it cannot be said that something had been provennto them.

In other words, proof is subjective. If someone refuses to change their mind, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they can simply arbitrarily reject all of it and laugh like a madman going, "Ah ha! There is no proof!"

Atheists love to use this language game because they don't believe in truth. They have embraced arbitrariness. They don't believe anything they say, they say only what they think might sound convincing to some, because their goal is to subvert the hearers into being ad foolish as they are.

Atheists don't believe in the truth. There is no reasoning with the unteasonable. It's a heart issue. If they don't love the truth, as the scriptures say, they will be cursed with strong delusion.

They bring it on to themselves. Of course, they will be forgiven if they turn away from their wickedness, but many of them get off on their wickedness. They don't understand that it is the root of their suffering.

God exists despite whether your human mind believes in Him. 

Prove it.

"A true belief would provide answers and would be accurate. If you were on the 'right side' of that belief it would be comforting. It would give reassurance of what the future holds for you.  "

You mean it pacifies your fear of reality, your fear of death, your fear of the end.

"No, it is not a false dichotomy. Every single person has a worldview that is built on core presuppositional starting points, such as God exists or there is no adequate reason for God's existence (acceptance or denial of God). Depending on where you start is where you look for evidence. If naturalistic means are your starting point then you look for naturalistic explanations. Science is your god, what you bow down to and submit too. "

The non-existence of gods has no discernible impact on my worldview, does the non-existence of Goblins affect your world view in any way? 

Special pleading is hereby ridiculed and rejected.

I think it should be noted that existence having an origin doesn't demand agency - Skep1

I am not necessarily sure that the idea of God requires agency. Consider, for a moment, Spinoza's interpretation of God. That said, I think the origin of everything implies some degree of agency, for something must have caused everything to exist. Without a will urging things along, nothing could have come to exist, since there would be no materials in non-existence capable of reacting to create existence in the first place.

Either you look at the DATA and interpret it from a naturalist or supernatural viewpoint 

That's not science, that's being biased.  You look at the data and it will tell us how reality works, no interpretations required.

I look at the scientific evidence in a way that confirms God's existence

That's being biased and is not how science works. There is absolutely nothing in any scientific data that has ever confirmed any gods existence, including your God. 

Newton saw science as a way of investigating God's creation and finding out more about his Creator

Yet, Newton found nothing about any Creator.

Darwin saw science as a way or separating God from creation.

That is entirely and completely false. Darwin was being a scientist without the same bias as you have. He looked at the data and realized all living things evolved.

Clearly, you have a deep bias against science and what science has discovered. It's no wonder why you know so little about it and that which you do know is wrong.

Sure it makes a difference when it was written

Unless you want to argue it is unreasonable to expect a perfect being (all knowing, all powerful, etc) to choose a conduit of communication that will stand the test of time, then my point stands: the Bible is not the work of a perfect being. 

Beaming a message to humans and leaving it in their safekeeping with no apparent oversight is a completely absurd route for the alleged creator of the universe to rely upon. If you, I, or any competent human, given the same power and knoweldge, would not rely on a multi-millennial game of telephone to convey crucial information to mankind.

Also, I just want to point out that you argued against contradictions, ignorance, and deterioration of the message (all of which are indisputable) and made no mention of the other 6 things that should not exist in the communications of a perfect being. I could concede ignorance and contradiction, the inability to know what the original authors actually wrote (much less what they actually meant) in the Bible and still have plenty of reasons to reject the Bible as the work of a perfect being. 

I can think of only a limited amount of possibilities such as:

1) life was created,

2) life came about by chance,

3) life is an illusion.

But, that's only what you can think of, yet there are other alternative you haven't thought of, hence you're making your decisions based on personal incredulity and ignorance. Just because you haven't educated yourself, doesn't mean others haven't also.

Such as?

Such as current scientific observations, data, evidence and explanations. If you can't bothered to educate yourself on what's going on in this regard, you don't really have a position to opine on such things.

Who is making up the fantasy world?

That's what religion is, a fantasy world, which is occupied by people like you.

You yourself live in a fantasy world and that is your choice.

I actually see a difference between a mind and a brain.

Please tell us the difference between a mind and a brain.

By the way, believing there is a difference between mind and a brain has a name, it's called dualism.

Nor did I state God is only a thought in a human brain. I actually see a difference between a mind and a brain.

You may not have stated God is only a thought in a human brain, but no one, including you, has ever demonstrated God is anything but a thought in a human brain. The mind is a function of the brain.

Why would you hold a belief in something if it was not superior to some other belief? (I have an answer to that question) Only because you don't know any better or because you don't like the consequences of believing the other (as you admit and I underlined).

Here you miss my point entirely. I am not stating that I would hold a belief knowing that there is a better belief, but that I don't assume my belief is the best (As I've said I'm not convinced there is a best). What would make a belief best? Some people want beliefs that provide answers, others want beliefs that are comforting or make them happy, some people want beliefs that are as accurate to reality as possible (I know I do). Which is objectively best and why?

You can't throw around terms like better unless there is a final, fixed measure of better - best. Do you have one? If not, then how do you know what you believe is right, or good, or ought to be the case? You plead ignorance.

I don't throw such terms around. I answered your question which references best. I haven't once claimed (nor will I) that one belief is better than another, I may say that something is better for me. I may give a subjective opinion that includes what I consider best, I won't claim it is objectively true. My question to you is can you show there is an objective 'best' in terms of beliefs? If a reason I should presuppose god is to have a way of identifying the objective 'best' or 'good' then can you demonstrate that such exists?

You have not demonstrated the ability to reason on why I SHOULD believe you. 

What claims have I made? When have I suggested you should believe me? I am asking questions offering alternative views and asking how you can show them to be inaccurate.

You have many. Maybe you do not understand them. Many, many people do not realize their worldview bias. No one is neutral. If you don't presuppose God then you presuppose some other beginning. You build on those beginnings from a worldview that excludes God as the, or the likely, explanation.

This is a false dichotomy  (and a fairly arrogant one at that). I know my world views, I don't presuppose anything. I haven't and don't, claim to know how the universe began, I don't claim a god is impossible or improbable, I don't claim that a god is necessary or likely. I haven't supposed what (if anything) was before this universe. I fail to see why I must presuppose any of these things rather than remaining with the default position of 'I don't know' it's an honest position that makes sense with the evidence available to us.

I can think of only a limited amount of possibilities such as:

1) life was created,

2) life came about by chance,

3) life is an illusion.

But, that's only what you can think of, yet there are other alternative you haven't thought of, hence you're making your decisions based on personal incredulity and ignorance. Just because you haven't educated yourself, doesn't mean others haven't also.

It was written during ancient times. The language and culture were different. 

Given that the Bible is said to be inspired by "God", it makes no difference when or where it was written. A perfect being should be able to communicate in a way that would not deteriorate and become unclear. Regardless of language or culture, there should be no ignorance represented as truth or knowledge.  And, finally, there should be no contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc.

The Bible does not communicate clearly, it does represent ignorance as knowledge, there are contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc. Given this, the Bible is not the work of a perfect being regardless of what it claims.

Even if you look at it as a claim, history backs up prophecy. 

At best, history agrees with your interpretation of prophecy.

Yes, people still sin today.

Then, you have just admitted the prophecy is false. Well done. I knew you'd eventually see the facts.

Here is your dilemma, when you stand before God without trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior

Your dilemma is trying to demonstrate a prophecy, but then admitted the prophecy is false.

BTW, it looks like DebateArt did not reset the debate. Do you want me to start it over or should we first get our five judges to commit?

Maybe we should postpone it.  I recently lost my father and I don't have the focus to do a debate right now.

That prophecy gave six conditions that would take place.

1) to finish the transgression,

2) to make an end of sin,

3) to make atonement for iniquity,

4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,

5) to seal up vision and prophecy,

6) to anoint the 

most holy

 place.

That's ridiculous, those are just vague faith based assertions that cannot be observed or tested in any way and can applied to any number of events. In fact, please tell me if #2 occurs any more? Do people still sin or not? What about #4, is there everlasting righteousness and can you demonstrate that?

The Bible is not convincing to me in the least.  The contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, the blatant tampering by self interested anonymous persons, additions, deletions, etc.  In addition to this, the Bible is the claim and cannot be evidence of itself.

The prophecy did not state the day or year. The prophecy did not state Roman soldiers would surround and destroy it. Hence, no prophecy.

I will say this again. I do not know how life originated and so I am not claiming that it came about by any particular method. I reject your claim that it was brought about by some god(s) and I reject any claim that it came about by random chance. I reject all claims concerning the origins of life until some hypothesis can be demonstrated as true. I know life exists but that does not tell me where it came from.

No one has disputed what I claim is historical fact

That's because you have yet to show it is historical fact.

Then the question is, HOW can it? You just presuppose it can because you construct a worldview on the house of cards of chance happenstance. 

I don't have a presupposition. I simply don't accept as true the god claim. I don't claim to know how the universe or life began. I don't presuppose god because there's insufficient information to warrant god. I don't presuppose not-god for the same reason.

I can show the reasonableness of the belief in God, via the biblical documents (i.e., His word), especially via prophecy which is based in history. I can also point to the reasonableness of creation over chance. I can offer the case of making sense of ultimately anything without first presupposing God. I believe I can do this in a logical and rational manner. As for my own personal belief, I am certain of God's existence. I speak in terms of 'ifs' for those who doubt. 

As for the unknown, just like you, I am limited in my knowledge. Thus God's existence would provide certainty of what others view as unknown. If God did not exist or had not revealed Himself I would be in the same uncertain boat as everyone else. My understanding of origins relies on me correctly interpreting His Word. If I incorrectly interpret His word I'm in the same boat as an unbeliever. The point is that it is not what I say, but whether what I say conforms to His word. 

This seems more a support for solipsism than theism. How exactly is it that you can know god exists? Rather than that we cannot know anything?

As for your degree of certainty outside of God, and His existence and revelation, how can you ever be sure of origins and meaning and all kinds of other factors? The question of why is void, outside of God. 

Why does something exist rather than nothing? 

Why is there meaning in a supposed meaningless universe? 

Why is there moral 'right' without an objective, universal, unchanging measure?

Why is what you believe any BETTER than what anyone else believes?

Why does life (supposedly) originate from non-living, non-conscious material?

This is an argument from ignorance (and possibly an appeal to emotion), you're not presenting reasons god must exist, simply stating solipsism must be true if god doesn't exist. Can you show that we can know anything? Can you disprove solipsism? If not then your argument doesn't prove god.

I question whether there is such a thing as a 'spiritual facts'. The fact that the existence of spiritual facts can be seriously questioned means, at the very least, they are subjective.

This begs the question: Why should subjective experiences be considered as evidence shaping our understanding of our shared reality - especially when these experiences are often incompatible with one another? 

The reasonable answer is that without the ability to validate and/or verify these 'facts', they should not be considered evidence in any meaningful objective way. 

Science does not answer questions about God or anything other than what we study in our physical universe,

God has never been shown to exist hence there are no questions to answer.

What is more reasonable, Creator or chance? (Hint, there is no reason to chance - so why do you continually find reasons from it?)

What were the variables at work? What were the conditions and physical limitations (if there were any) before this universe? Without that information it's impossible to form an informed opinion on the likelihood of either. 

As for the rest, you seem to be simply stating that order cannot exist without intelligence. I have yet to see any reason to assume this is the case. In an ordered universe with consistent and predictable forces at work it should be expected that we find constants from these we as intelligent beings find reason. The real question is does such a universe necessitate an intelligent creator. Having found no evidence to allow me to conclude either way it remains for me at least an unknown.

IMO, it is an unwarranted leap for those who only think within the box called "Nature." They don't want to think of anything that science cannot prove ("If I can't see it, I won't believe it."). Yet, from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. They don't have the grounds for certainty. 

Until such a time as you can show that god can be known to exist (something no one I'm aware of has done) rather than simpy believed to, then you have no more grounds for certainty than anyone else. You can either look for answers to the unknown, or pretend it isn't unknown. Once the necessity of the creator can be demonstrated then why assume one?

Supply evidence of the Jews being enslaved for 400yrs by the Egyptians.

Supply evidence that 4million people wandered around the Sinai for 40yrs

Supply evidence that there was ever a world wide flood deeper than Everest is high.

As I said there is very little if any history in the bible.

"The evil was done by the parents."

So your vindictive, petty, hateful gods kills infants and is proud of it. Does he object to abortion because he wants the monopoly? He prefers to perform it on women who want a baby, what a pissant god.

"FACT: We all die physically,"

Fact we all die placing a qualification on that is superflous, there is no other way to die. If you wish to claim there is then prove it.

"I claim I can know because God has revealed,"

You claim to know because a man has told you god has revealed, but you are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 

The wars, famines, earthquakes apply to 1st-century 

Israel; the Jewish people of that time. 

Don't be ridiculous, wars, famines, and earthquakes happened all the time.

You, a mere human claims to know the truth, but you are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true? 

Your argument is defeated by your argument.

And that is all you do, make unsupportable claims.

By the impossibility of the contrary. 

That makes no sense at all.

Show me how that is possible. Show me it is reasonable to believe

That's the answer scientists are working on, it's called abiogenesis. You need to understand it before you can believe it. But then, there's no reason to believe it if you understand it.

THERE IS NO REASON.

There doesn't have to be reason for the universe to exist. it just exists as do we. This is simple to understand. Is there a reason for mosquitoes? Why then do they exist? Answer, they just do exist.

It has NO ABILITY to do anything. Intentional beings have abilities to do things. 

But, the laws of nature can do things, as we can see in nature itself. Tell me what the reason was for the tsunami that killed over a quarter million people? Was there a reason or did it just happen because of the laws of nature?

For instance, roll a six on a dice repeatedly, without fixing it in any way one million times in a row. Theoretically, you can claim it possible but to demonstrate it would take forever. 

That's a meaningless strawman, it says nothing about our discussion. Irrelevant.

How can you know certainty without a necessary all-knowing being?

Easy, we use our brains to think, something it appears you aren't doing.

Some things can be thought of in theory, yet they are not possible to demonstrate in practice.

I agree with This one hundred percent. Some things are impossible to demonstrate. In such cases it is beyond our epistemological limits to say with certainty that they are true or false. 

without fixing it in any way one million times in a row. 

The chances of rolling six one million times in a row is astronomical but really so are the chances of rolling any specific combination of numbers. Regardless of what numbers come up on your dice the chances of that specific combination are still six million to one against and yet if you roll a dice six million times you will get a specific combination of numbers.

With the anthropomorphic principle multiple the chance billions of times over with a myriad of things. And what is "chance"? It is a word we use to describe probability. It has no ability in itself.  

How can you know certainty without a necessary all-knowing being?

Complete certainty about anything would seem to be beyond humans. Our experience is just too limited and subjective.

What is the truth? Do you have it in regards to origins?

Nope and neither do you, or at least you seem unable to demonstrate this truth.